Oh, and they're (again) accusing the RIAA lawyers of violating "the ethical rules governing our profession on an unprecedented scale."

We're not sure this is the best approach coming from Charlie Nesson, the Harvard Law professor who has already been accused of breaking the law by the federal judge overseeing the case, but if there's one thing we've learned from covering the case, it's that Nesson plays from his own rulebook... and calls witnesses from his own family.

Attacking MediaSentry

Kiwi Camara, the lead lawyer defending Jammie Thomas-Rasset, is a former Nesson pupil who plans to file a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA later this summer. He has now joined his one-time mentor on the Tenenbaum case, which goes to trial at the end of the July.

This week, Camara and Nesson filed a joint brief asking for MediaSentry's evidence against their client to be tossed.

"MediaSentry collected this evidence in violation of federal and state criminal statutes that restrict wiretapping and require that private detectives be trained and licensed," they write.

Then, referencing the massive Thomas-Rasset judgment, they add, "In the first recording-industry prosecution to go to trial, the jury returned a verdict of $1.92M, or $80,000 per song for 24 songs. We submit that, with stakes this high, the federal courts should make clear to the world that the kind of gross abuse of federal process that we have seen in the last seven years will never again be permitted."

Camara and Nesson claim that MediaSentry broke state and federal wiretap laws simply by recording IP packets (and the IP addresses on them) sent to their machines. This is, to say the least, a novel interpretation of "wiretapping," but the lawyers have anticipated the objection.

"And it is no defense to say that MediaSentry merely recorded data (TCP/IP packets) sent to it," they write. "Packets on arrival but before conversion to human-readable form are protected and may not be tapped, just like a tap in the receiver of a phone is no less objectionable than a tap on the main line."

This argument sounds about as likely to succeed as my attempt to build an iPhone in my garage out of spare parts from my lawnmower, but Camara and Nesson also charge that MediaSentry violated the Massachusetts private detective law by not registering as an investigator. This argument, also raised (and rejected) in the Thomas-Rasset case, may have more success this time; that's because Massachusetts has already gotten involved in the matter.

In 2008, the State Police Certification Unit contacted MediaSentry parent SafeNet and informed the company that it was "advertising and operating a Private Detective company" and that review of state records indicates that the company is "not licensed to conduct investigations" in the state. The company apparently continued to operate without a license even after receipt of the letter.

The state's letter was cited by Nesson and Camara in their brief this week.

Of course, this issue won't pass without a fight; if the evidence is thrown out, the main evidence in the case would be gone. Nesson and Camara say that if that happens, they will move for a directed judgment, and the case would probably be over. MediaSentry generally points out that it does not operate in the jurisdictions where it has been attacked, and it says it does not conduct any functions that are reserved to private investigators; instead, it simply gathers publicly-available from the various P2P networks it monitors.

Putting family on the witness stand

If Nesson has had his fill of RIAA lawyers, the feeling appears to be mutual. After Nesson dragged his heels on filing proper expert witness disclosures for John Perry Barlow, EFF founder and former Grateful Dead lyricist, Nesson failed to get the proper paperwork in on time. What was submitted doesn't appear to be well-crafted, either.

Writing in a brief this week, recording industry lawyers said, "If allowed, Barlow claims he would testify that (a) the Internet and peer-to-peer technology 'allow us to do that which we, as humans, fundamentally need to do: share art,' (b) 'the music industry will never be endangered,' and (c) 'the recording industry must evolve.' His report, however, fails to offer any basis or reason for these opinions other than his 'personal experiences' and his 'position as a public intellectual,' fails to identify a single source of data or other information considered, and fails to list Barlow’s purported qualifications."

They want Barlow's testimony excluded—and they aren't pleased about other witnesses Nesson hopes to call. They object to "defendant's recent disclosure of a new proposed 'expert' witness in this case, Wayne Marshall, who appears to be the son-in-law of defense counsel."

The Wayne Marshall in question is the (former) Brandeis music professor and reggae enthusiast who is married to Nesson's daughter Rebecca. Marshall has been the Florence Levy Kay Fellow in Ethnomusicology at Brandeis University since 2007, a position that was not converted into a full professorship this year (a decision that led to the Web-based "Save Wayne" campaign"). He moves on to an MIT fellowship position in the fall.

What might Marshall testify to? His research project proposal gives us a clue. Called "Brave New World Music: Making and Sharing Music in a Peer-to-Peer World," Marshall hopes to bring together "theories, methods, and data from music and sound studies, media and cultural studies, digital anthropology, sociology, and work across the 'digital humanities' more generally" in order to "reevaluate the question of 'world music' in light of the remarkable technological and discursive shifts represented by socially networked, online exchanges of music."

But it's very (very) late in the case to be submitting new witnesses, Marshall doesn't appear to be an expert on the actual issues here (copyright infringement, computer and network security, etc.), and the familial link between Nesson and Marshall has already caught the record labels' attention. We would be surprised to see Marshall get the chance to testify at trial.

The labels also want one more chance to question Joel Tenenbaum before the trial "regarding his recently disclosed hard drive and CDs, as well as facts regarding the recent posting of sound recordings on Megauploads.com."

This last bit is in reference to the bizarre fact that someone from the Tenenbaum legal team uploaded the songs at issue in the case to a file-sharing service... and Nesson then posted that information publicly on his blog. Unfortunately for the labels, Tenenbaum will be on vacation in Venice until early July, so they have moved the deposition date back to accommodate the trip. At least Tenenbaum has something to look forward to the day after he returns home.

Can the case get any weirder? We've asked that before, and the answer has always been "yes," so we're quite sure that the trial itself won't be dull. But Judge Gertner has already told Nesson that her "indulgence is at an end," and she may start clamping down on the case's numerous irregularities. We should know how she rules on several of these motions early next week.

59 Reader Comments

I'm afraid this one will end up just like Thomas' crushing $2m loss earlier this month. Once again, the defendant's attorney seems to hail from the Lionel Hutz school of law: his only strategy seems to be creating a circus sideshow of surprise witnesses, each one more surprising than the last. While this may kill a lot of time, I doubt it will benefit his client and will probably just piss off the judge.

This doesn't make sense. Why would you choose an ethnomusicologist to be an expert witness in a lawsuit that is (seems) to be more about computer science and networking theory? Either there is far more going on here, or the behaviour of both professor Nesson and Mr Camara grows more asinine by the minute.

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:I'm afraid this one will end up just like Thomas' crushing $2m loss earlier this month. Once again, the defendant's attorney seems to hail from the Lionel Hutz school of law: his only strategy seems to be creating a circus sideshow of surprise witnesses, each one more surprising than the last. While this may kill a lot of time, I doubt it will benefit his client and will probably just piss off the judge.

My thoughts exactly. These "attorneys" need to come up with a solid defense based in law or advise their client to accept the RIAA settlement offer. As it is they're putting their client at great risk as shown by the Jamie Thomas award.

"If allowed, Barlow claims he would testify that (a) the Internet and peer-to-peer technology 'allow us to do that which we, as humans, fundamentally need to do: share art,' (b) 'the music industry will never be endangered,' and (c) 'the recording industry must evolve.'

He should also testify as to the inherent goodness of the human soul, the spiritual well-being brought about by sharing, and the fact that the RIAA are a bunch of smelly poopoo heads.

Maybe they want another $2 million judgement against them? What better way to challenge the law itself for being unconstitutional? Maybe it could help with the class-action lawsuit later in the year - and result in either a change of the law, the charges / judgements being revoked or both?

I mean, Nesson is nuts, but a good kind of nuts. Unfortunately, crazy people only change things when there's a big enough crowd behind them. Even even the Ars crowd can't quite throw their weight behind him, how is a judge?

But he IS getting attention. And this madman might be just what the cause needs to see how ridiculous the whole thing is.

I can only sympathize with Thomas and Tenenbaum, and God knows I don't want Tenenbaum stuck with a $2m penalty. But the backlash from the first trial was good for Nesson's cause. I can only see a similar award generating more sympathy for filesharers.

I pray that Mr. Tenenbuam's counsel will be able to stop RIAA hired wannabe crackers and cyber-thugs. That any courts allow MediaSentry evidence at all is truly a sad commentary on our times. The fact that RIAA have dissociated themselves from MediaSentry but still want to use the fruits of MediaSentry's sleazy "investigation" speaks poorly of their own integrity.

Originally posted by Epimetreus:It does somewhat smack of someone who's lost faith in the legal system's ability to handle this mess, and who is trying to escalate it past that point.

Sorry, but to me it smacks like a loose cannon who couldnt defend a client to save his life and is more enamored with hearing himself talk then to actually having the best interest of his client at heart.

quote:

Originally posted by TheException:

I mean, Nesson is nuts, but a good kind of nuts. Unfortunately, crazy people only change things when there's a big enough crowd behind them. Even even the Ars crowd can't quite throw their weight behind him, how is a judge?

But he IS getting attention. And this madman might be just what the cause needs to see how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Yeah, he's getting attention allright but for all the wrong reasons and not one of his antics has led to anything except an irate judge who's this close to locking him up for contempt.

No, this madman will not get copyright laws changed, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a loony as he is, in fact he's doing that cause a world of harm right now because with his idiotic antics.

Oh and 'the cause'? Good god, you'd think there were civil rights involved here, 'the cause' seems to be that you can appropriate other people's rights without consequence.

"If allowed, Barlow claims he would testify that (a) the Internet and peer-to-peer technology 'allow us to do that which we, as humans, fundamentally need to do: share art,' (b) 'the music industry will never be endangered,' and (c) 'the recording industry must evolve.'

He should also testify as to the inherent goodness of the human soul, the spiritual well-being brought about by sharing, and the fact that the RIAA are a bunch of smelly poopoo heads.

Should make for amusing, if irrevelant testimony.

Thank you for that post.

Not only was it dead on target, but I laughed so suddenly that I almost spewed coffee accross my desk. That made my morning!

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:I'm afraid this one will end up just like Thomas' crushing $2m loss earlier this month. Once again, the defendant's attorney seems to hail from the Lionel Hutz school of law: his only strategy seems to be creating a circus sideshow of surprise witnesses, each one more surprising than the last. While this may kill a lot of time, I doubt it will benefit his client and will probably just piss off the judge.

My thoughts exactly. These "attorneys" need to come up with a solid defense based in law or advise their client to accept the RIAA settlement offer. As it is they're putting their client at great risk as shown by the Jamie Thomas award.

In my opinion, Joel would be in a position to sue his legal advisor, its ridiculous that he hasn't just told him to take the settlement. He is basically using his supposed client to further his own goals.

Originally posted by Grashnak:He should also testify as to the inherent goodness of the human soul, the spiritual well-being brought about by sharing, and the fact that the RIAA are a bunch of smelly poopoo heads.

Should make for amusing, if irrevelant testimony.

That was pretty funny.

But anyway...Don Quixote would have an even rougher go at it today because all the windmills are corporate owned. His testimony will be interesting as to its application for the whole thing as it might appeal to the 'humanistic' side of things for the jury a little better then just the RIAA 'burn them at the stake' approach. Who knows.

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:I'm afraid this one will end up just like Thomas' crushing $2m loss earlier this month. Once again, the defendant's attorney seems to hail from the Lionel Hutz school of law: his only strategy seems to be creating a circus sideshow of surprise witnesses, each one more surprising than the last. While this may kill a lot of time, I doubt it will benefit his client and will probably just piss off the judge.

My thoughts exactly. These "attorneys" need to come up with a solid defense based in law or advise their client to accept the RIAA settlement offer. As it is they're putting their client at great risk as shown by the Jamie Thomas award.

it may not be the same . in the thomas case article (something left out by ars), the judge also stress out that the accepted of mediasentry (with reason of fair use) is valid in thomas case only .

I guess this is why nesson try use the same reason again . and this time I believe reason fair use won't work .

from beginning I think the reason of fair use is totally ridicules and danger . people can miss used it (next time people can come out evidence from a doctor that without a doctor licenses an claim as fair use) .

Originally posted by Catafriggm:Can anybody provide me with an official list of "functions that are reserved to private investigators"?

You know, driving fast cars, shooting at and being shot at by central casting villains, occasional melodrama, lots of old friends who only exist for one episode, Donald P. Bellisario production values, and a kick ass theme song.

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:I'm afraid this one will end up just like Thomas' crushing $2m loss earlier this month. Once again, the defendant's attorney seems to hail from the Lionel Hutz school of law: his only strategy seems to be creating a circus sideshow of surprise witnesses, each one more surprising than the last. While this may kill a lot of time, I doubt it will benefit his client and will probably just piss off the judge.

My thoughts exactly. These "attorneys" need to come up with a solid defense based in law or advise their client to accept the RIAA settlement offer. As it is they're putting their client at great risk as shown by the Jamie Thomas award.

it may not be the same . in the thomas case article (something left out by ars), the judge also stress out that the accepted of mediasentry (with reason of fair use) is valid in thomas case only .

I guess this is why nesson try use the same reason again . and this time I believe reason fair use won't work .

from beginning I think the reason of fair use is totally ridicules and danger . people can miss used it (next time people can come out evidence from a doctor that without a doctor licenses an claim as fair use) .

Right. In another article, also written by Nate, it makes mention of the fact that Media Sentry wasn't a Private Detective under MN law. Unless this case is also being tried in MN I'm not sure what relevence it has.

quote:

But Davis concluded that "MediaSentry is not subject to the MPDA. Based on the language of the MPDA, the Act does not apply to persons or companies operating outside of the state of Minnesota..

Media Sentry may well run afoul of other states private detective laws.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:It dosen't even matter. MediaSentry is only liable to follow the laws of its home state. Mass has no case here regardless of what they wish.

Wrong. While it's probably the case that a state can't charge MediaSentry for violating their laws (when MediaSentry is located in another state), any state can throw out MediaSentry evidence if it doesn't follow their own laws. The reason this did not occur in the Thomas trial was because the laws in that state explicitly did not apply to investigators outside the state.

I don't get the "private investigator" argument. It's not like MediaSentry is digging through your trash or requesting your tax history. It's only accepting information off of packets that you sent it. As the RIAA stated in the previous case (and I hate to admit they're right on this), if you rule that recording IP addresses is a violation of privacy, the Internet pretty much falls flat on its face.

I can't see any judge ruling that what MediaSentry does is operating as a "private investigator" without calling into question the legality of the entire Internet. Honestly, I prefer the "Wild West" version of the Internet where almost anything goes to the version where the government can rule on exactly what kind of routing algorithms can be put into place.

Let's take my guilty pleasure, WoW. How the hell is Blizzard suppose to send me my sweet, sweet packets of Night Elf facesmashing goodness if I have to give them my consent to send me packets at my IP address every time my IP address changes (as I have a dynamic IP address)?

Originally posted by thenino85:I don't get the "private investigator" argument. It's not like MediaSentry is digging through your trash or requesting your tax history. It's only accepting information off of packets that you sent it. As the RIAA stated in the previous case (and I hate to admit they're right on this), if you rule that recording IP addresses is a violation of privacy, the Internet pretty much falls flat on its face.

I can't see any judge ruling that what MediaSentry does is operating as a "private investigator" without calling into question the legality of the entire Internet. Honestly, I prefer the "Wild West" version of the Internet where almost anything goes to the version where the government can rule on exactly what kind of routing algorithms can be put into place.

Let's take my guilty pleasure, WoW. How the hell is Blizzard suppose to send me my sweet, sweet packets of Night Elf facesmashing goodness if I have to give them my consent to send me packets at my IP address every time my IP address changes (as I have a dynamic IP address)?

This is one case where the cure is definitely worse than the disease.

The definition in Massachusetts:

“Private detective” or “private investigator”, a person engaged in business as a private detective or private investigator, including any person who, for hire, fee, reward or other consideration, (1) uses a lie-detector for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to the conduct, integrity, efficiency, loyalty or activities of any person or (2) engages in the business of making investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following matters, whether or not other functions or services are also performed for hire, fee, reward or other consideration, or other persons are employed to assist in making such investigations:—

(a) Crime or other acts committed or threatened against the laws or government of the United States or any state of the United States;

(b) The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation or character of any person;

Yes, but I'd argue that any internet service that logs any data of any kind falls into category (B). Does this mean that only ISPs and sites that are registered as private investagators can hand over IP logs?

Originally posted by Targ8ter:Yes, but I'd argue that any internet service that logs any data of any kind falls into category (B). Does this mean that only ISPs and sites that are registered as private investagators can hand over IP logs?

Hand them over to who? If it's to be used as "Evidence to be used before any investigating committee, board of award, or board of arbitration, or in the trial of civil or criminal cases." Then I would say yes, or it would require a warrant/subpoena.

Originally posted by reflex-croft:It dosen't even matter. MediaSentry is only liable to follow the laws of its home state. Mass has no case here regardless of what they wish.

Wrong. While it's probably the case that a state can't charge MediaSentry for violating their laws (when MediaSentry is located in another state), any state can throw out MediaSentry evidence if it doesn't follow their own laws. The reason this did not occur in the Thomas trial was because the laws in that state explicitly did not apply to investigators outside the state.

So yes, it very much matters.

Incorrect, the issue really was that it was federal court and federal law. Even if the MN law had been written in a way that it applied to out of state entities(a very dubious law at that point, unlikely to hold up IMO), the case was not in MN jurisdiction, it was in Federal court.

So the obvious conjoiner is if you shop around for a good state, you can digitally stalk anyone free of risk. I like this idea. Maybe I should change hats, work for the RIAA, make HUGE BANK, and never have any risk. I wouldn't need to register my business for what it does if I picked the right state to incorporate in, as by our dated rules I'd only be able to operate on people within my own state, right? The internet's broken down that way, right? Surely I'm here in Seattle only getting packets from people from Pullman, Vancouver-WA, Spokane, Bellingham.

What's that you say, Ars is from Chicago? Bollocks to that, it can't be true!

The state law should reasonably apply to cases within that state's jurisdiction. Reflex pointed out why that wasn't the case in the JTR case - is it in MA jurisdiction on Tenenbaum? Or is it fed again? If it's fed, the defense is even more obviously a waste of time.

These two are rehashing defenses that didn't work. That's the definition of stupidity, right? Repeating something expecting a different result? I'd really like someone to go after the RIAA legal campaign effectively, I'm sure once it's put under attack it will crumble. I just am losing my faith that Nesson and company can do it.

Originally posted by Rabbit0864:Maybe they want another $2 million judgement against them? What better way to challenge the law itself for being unconstitutional? Maybe it could help with the class-action lawsuit later in the year - and result in either a change of the law, the charges / judgements being revoked or both?

Nesson really is as insane as he seems. It wouldn't be too surprising if this thought--effectively throwing the case to pursue a broader goal--had crossed his mind.

On the other hand, that would seem to confirm that his representation of Mr. Tenenbaum was never about the client in the first place and more about entertaining Professor Nesson's quixotic quest to facilitate a "pedagogical moment" writ large. If that were actually the case, there's a term for it: malpractice.

quote:

In my opinion, Joel would be in a position to sue his legal advisor, its ridiculous that he hasn't just told him to take the settlement. He is basically using his supposed client to further his own goals.

I agree, as noted above.

I suppose it's possible that Mr. Tenebaum has been presented with the offer and the ramifications of accepting it or not, but drank the Nesson Kool-aid and decided to reject it himself. Perhaps that's even the reason that Nesson opted to represent him.

I'm not sure what the arrangement with Harvard Law School is with respect to this representation (after all, there was a clinic for students built around it), or whether Nesson has any sort of indemnity or insurance arrangements through Harvard Law School itself for professional malpractice in this instance. It would be hilarious if HLS ended up pitted against its own tenured and chaired faculty over that faculty member's legal malpractice.

Why don't they attack their evidence as hearsay? MediaSentry apparently doesn't perform due diligence to ensure that their evidence is genuine and unaltered, they can't prove that it isn't entirely fabricated based off of that.

It shouldn't be admissible in court on that basis, screw the wiretapping bit.

Originally posted by Runningflame590:Why don't they attack their evidence as hearsay? MediaSentry apparently doesn't perform due diligence to ensure that their evidence is genuine and unaltered, they can't prove that it isn't entirely fabricated based off of that.

It shouldn't be admissible in court on that basis, screw the wiretapping bit.

That's not really a a hearsay problem, that's a problem with the reliability or authenticity of the evidence.

Your point is well taken, although I believe those issues were raised in the Thomas case with little success. I'm not sure how successful they would be here; I suggested in an earlier post to a news article that evidentiary grounds are probably the best shot that any of these defendants has at winning. But that's hardly a shoe-in. It certainly didn't pan out that way for Thomas, although there were a number of factors cutting against her in that case that might not be at issue here.

Originally posted by thenino85:I don't get the "private investigator" argument. It's not like MediaSentry is digging through your trash or requesting your tax history. It's only accepting information off of packets that you sent it. As the RIAA stated in the previous case (and I hate to admit they're right on this), if you rule that recording IP addresses is a violation of privacy, the Internet pretty much falls flat on its face.

I can't see any judge ruling that what MediaSentry does is operating as a "private investigator" without calling into question the legality of the entire Internet. Honestly, I prefer the "Wild West" version of the Internet where almost anything goes to the version where the government can rule on exactly what kind of routing algorithms can be put into place.

Let's take my guilty pleasure, WoW. How the hell is Blizzard suppose to send me my sweet, sweet packets of Night Elf facesmashing goodness if I have to give them my consent to send me packets at my IP address every time my IP address changes (as I have a dynamic IP address)?

This is one case where the cure is definitely worse than the disease.

The definition in Massachusetts:

“Private detective” or “private investigator”, a person engaged in business as a private detective or private investigator, including any person who, for hire, fee, reward or other consideration, (1) uses a lie-detector for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to the conduct, integrity, efficiency, loyalty or activities of any person or (2) engages in the business of making investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following matters, whether or not other functions or services are also performed for hire, fee, reward or other consideration, or other persons are employed to assist in making such investigations:—

(a) Crime or other acts committed or threatened against the laws or government of the United States or any state of the United States;

(b) The identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation or character of any person;

(d) Evidence to be used before any investigating committee, board of award, or board of arbitration, or in the trial of civil or criminal cases.

(a) is a maybe, (b) is definite, and (d) is definite.

Doesn't matter (as the Judge already ruled) because they are not operating in MN. They collected the evidence from wherever they were and since they weren't operatin in the state they aren't required to have an MN PI license.

Her data was publicly accessible and public advertised to any other Kazaa user on the internet (that's the point of P2P software).

If a PI in California investigates someone, that evidence isn't going to be tossed in a divorce hearing in MN because the PI doesn't have an MN license (they don't need one from the place where they did their investigation... a PI can't be registered everywhere).

The judge already rule on this, and his reasoning is sound... that evidence isn't going to be tossed.

The lawyer should have focused on the quailty of the evidence. Screenshots aren't very compelling, and if MediaSentry has been wrong because (like evidence pointing to the wrong person), then it could be reasoned that they were wrong about her too (of course that still wouldn' explain the files on her computer...).

There was some speculation a while back that the RIAA hadn't Doe'd any Harvard students for fear of Harvard's "best and brightest" coming after them.

But looking at how things have gone so far, we have Kiwi Fruit getting his client slapped with a ~$1.9 million judgement (even though her inconsistent testimony across two cases probably didn't help). Now he's joined up again with Wacky Prof Nesson and it looks like the Tenenbaum case could possibly go the same way. And for what?

If the RIAA sued everyone who shares music, if this is the kind of crazy judgement to expect, then apparently the RIAA would make more money suing the entire world than they make in profit through regular sales. They could even make a theoretically infinite amount of money. Too bad they'd never be able to claim it, because not everyone has a spare 1.9 mill in the bank.

Geez. So if what we've seen so far is indicative of Harvard's "best and brightest", the RIAA should have targetted Harvard first. At least then they'd have set a precedent for obscenely high judgements to scare any future Does into settlement.

Originally posted by Catafriggm:Can anybody provide me with an official list of "functions that are reserved to private investigators"?

You know, driving fast cars, shooting at and being shot at by central casting villains, occasional melodrama, lots of old friends who only exist for one episode, Donald P. Bellisario production values, and a kick ass theme song.

Some of my fondest earliest memories as a kid were of staring at the TV when that theme started to play and seeing Tom Selleck.

'the cause' seems to be that you can appropriate other people's rights without consequence.

No, the 'cause' is to restore content creation. If someone can create one work and live off of it for the rest of their life then where is the incentive to create new works? People like you have no idea what copyright was intended for.

'the cause' seems to be that you can appropriate other people's rights without consequence.

No, the 'cause' is to restore content creation. If someone can create one work and live off of it for the rest of their life then where is the incentive to create new works? People like you have no idea what copyright was intended for.

Do you honestly believe that?

Aren't artists producing new work quite frequently? According to your line of thinking, we ought to be in a horrible artistic glut.

The other thing is that most of the copyright material that is pirated is recently material (you will always find more seeders of new material)... so if even copyright terms were no more than 5 years, people would still pirate about as as much as they do now.

Yeah, copyrights should still be shortened... but that has little to do with most piracy.